Talk:Megaupload/Archive 1

"Megaupload.com's Reward Programe" edit

User Special:Contributions/203.131.157.174 made an intriguing edit on the page that has yet to been reverted back. I'm interested in knowing if this is valid criticism and if there are any sources online to justify keeping a mention of this "fake reward program" phenomenon. Hong-baba 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I've seen about it. --DocumentN (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Don't you think that the Criticism section is a bit odd? Only the first statement contains critique regarding Megaupload. Second contains critique to the file-hosting as a whole. And the last two aren't critical statements at all (at least from my POV).Dreambringer 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Search engines are commonly used to find download links about a specific subject, including illegally shared files, such as adult movies and games." Deleted this line. HamSalad 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the lack of response from the Support Desk should be listed as a criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.72.33 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about blocking other sites (deliberate or not) and running up the other sites' bills while not showing original ads? It's not exactly "win-win" to have your site go down due to lack of money, or get banned from it. The replacement ads are mentioned on the company's own site which uses an image instead of text to say that, oddly. The blockage is claimed by some adult site users. Anyone have more solid references to back up/disprove that claim? {{subst:Unsigned|

No. 1 ?

Megaupload is currently number 1 website for free file hosting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.72.144 (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely one of the bigger one-click hosting sites. According to Alexa global rankings [1], Megaupload is #14, Megarotic is #23 and RapidShare is #11. --85.5.113.244 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Megaupload is no. 1 in things no one actually needs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.150.68 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Megarotic?

www.megarotic.com (not work safe) seems to be a sister site of Megaupload, but geared towards pornographic content. Might be worth mentioning.

Comparing WHOIS:

Registrant:

  Megaupload Ltd
  Room 1204, 12/F
  48-62 Hennessy Road
  Wan Chai, Hong Kong  
  Hong Kong

  Registrar: DOTREGISTRAR
  Domain Name: MEGAUPLOAD.COM
     Created on: 21-MAR-05
     Expires on: 21-MAR-14
     Last Updated on: 11-FEB-08

  Administrative, Technical Contact:
     Ltd, Megaupload  domain@megapix.com
     Room 1204, 12/F
     48-62 Hennessy Road
     Wan Chai, Hong Kong  
     Hong Kong
     +852.30173700

  Domain servers in listed order:
     NS3.SEXUPLOADER.COM 
     NS4.SEXUPLOADER.COM

Registrant:

  Megarotic Limited
  Room 1204, 12/F
  48-62 Hennessy Road
  Wan Chai, Hong Kong  
  Hong Kong

  Registrar: DOTREGISTRAR
  Domain Name: MEGAROTIC.COM
     Created on: 09-FEB-06
     Expires on: 09-FEB-14
     Last Updated on: 17-OCT-07

  Administrative, Technical Contact:
     Limited, Megarotic  domain@megapix.com
     Room 1204, 12/F
     48-62 Hennessy Road
     Wan Chai, Hong Kong  
     Hong Kong
     +852.66865841

  Domain servers in listed order:
     NS3.MEGAROTIC.COM 
     NS6.MEGAROTIC.COM 
     NS7.MEGAROTIC.COM

MegaUpload's Owner: http://www.ukhackers.com/story/?id=13430 --85.5.113.244 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

duly mentioned. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an ad

The two last sections of this article sound like some sort of ad... 65.23.241.249 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find and include only accurate information

I've had to correct some guy's mistakes, because he got his information from a flash graphic at the bottom of the MegaUpload site. Anyone planning to make further edits to this (or any other) article, please gather your information from either the FAQs or the Terms of Service. That holds the correct information in the correct context.

You cannot gather any useful or accurate information from a flash graphic that says: "Unlimited Transfers and 250 Gigs of Storage / 14.99 for two months | 79.9 for two years". Look in the terms for the useful stuff, like what "unlimited transfers" actually mean, or that "250 gigs of storage" doesn't mean 250G upload file size.

Sorry for bitching, but I'm sick of the naivety of accepting as truth anything that's written briefly on a website, ESPECIALLY in a graphic or other such marketing element. {{subst:Unsigned|

Blocking Alexa information

I asked MegaUpload about their choice to include Alexa into their toolbar, and they responded with:

"Alexa uses the data the toolbar sends to them for statistical purposes only, and we trust them. You can prevent the data from ever reaching the Alexa servers by simply putting xml.alexa.com 127.0.0.1 in your %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file."

This is from an email, not a webpage, so I don't know if this is valid for inclusion. NiveusLuna (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it isn't. It doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Maybe it says something like that in the FAQ already? --Nezek (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable links & sources

The sole citation for the Criticism section (TheCredence.com) seems questionable at best. This source should hardly be considered professional or reliable. The 'MegaFix for Firefox' external link seems out-of-place as well and seems inappropriate to include in this context. I am removing the latter, though if anyone has a good reason it should remain is welcome to revert my change. That aside, can anyone find a reliable source for the Criticism comments or remove this section entirely? Thanks. Ninestories (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Service is currently dead in Hong Kong

Oddly enough, the service has been dead here in Hong Kong for the past month. (Psychoneko (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not odd, HK media companies are the only ones that could make trouble for them. (Note that the jDownloader utility can access the downloads regardless.) Barsoomian (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First up, I don't really see how Hong Kong media companies could make trouble for MegaUpload. Could you elaborate more on this? Secondly, the jDownloader utility only occasionally works only when it accesses the jDownloader server/proxy. I could explain much more but it's probably better to let people figure it out by going to the jDownloader forums. (Psychoneko (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

They could sue them. Doesn't matter who eventually won or lost, it would cost a fortune to defend, lawyers are extremely expensive in HK. There was a case a couple of years ago when a guy was jailed for seeding movies on BT, so the courts are not tolerant of filesharing. As for jD, it works reliably in HK if you have a dynamic IP, no proxy needed. Just have Reconnect working to get a new IP after each download. Barsoomian (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website doesn't work for me either (UK), does it work anywhere or has it closed completely? MatthewWaller (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious reason they banned HK and China IPs is due to tax law. You are not charged for foreign earnings but have to pay tax on any domestic earnings. Cheapest solution is to blackout HK/China instead of being forced to hand over financial data to authorities to go over. 65.110.23.140 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked in the UK?

The Internet Watch foundation blocked access to MegaUpload to 95% of the UK Sunday 18 October 2009 on and again on Saturday 20 March 2010.

That's odd, because I was able to use Megaupload no problem yesterday. Either Karoo is that 5%, or it isn't true. For now, I'm going to remove it, as it doesn't have any sources. Digifiend (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting Times History

in 2006 users had to wait - as i remember - 480 minutes between each file to download and there was file space low limit - which i don't remember - and then then waiting time and the file changed many times till 2009. does anybody has the full exact informations about that so we can add them to the article? --41.35.236.87 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Status?

Can someone write a short bit about the legal status of megavideo? Does it have copyright issues? That's originally what I looked on this article for and it seems like something that should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.89.169 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My kids use this service, and it's difficult to determine its legal status. Do copyright owners get paid? Are the uploads authorized? The article lacks basic facts.

They are working as a hosting provider, which means that the service itself is legal in many countries and its is the uploaders responsibility to ensure that the material is legal. 81.167.215.20 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offering a legal opinion about anything on the Internet is well nigh impossible. It depends on the country you are in, and how case law has progressed over the years. As a result, "Is Megaupload legal?" is too broad a question to have any easy answer, so it is not addressed in the article. There is a tendency to single out Megaupload for criticism, although its basic model is no different from RapidShare and numerous other sites (MediaFire, Hotfile etc). All of these sites have terms of service, eg here for Megaupload. The article points out that Megaupload is often accused of encouraging copyright violation (which it denies), and that it has been blocked in some countries as a result.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The American indictment appears to be saying that the company made money by promoting file downloading, and therefore that was a criminal conspiracy. Since when was downloading files illegal?

Dotcom's bail request has not been denied. The judges decision on the application for bail has not yet been made - it was reserved. Can an established user please correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done At the time of writing, no decision has been made on whether bail will be granted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megaupload song controversy

As the source here says, UMG's statement that the song takedown did not occur under the terms of the DMCA raises more questions than it answers. The terms of the Content Management System (CMS) agreement are unclear, and the source also says: "This appears to be a reference to the agreement underlying the VEVO partnership between Google and UMG announced in April 2009. As far as we know, the agreement isn't public, so we can only speculate on what's in Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g). But we plan to ask Google for a copy".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of writing, The Mega Song by Mr Kim Dotcom is back up on YouTube again, with Megaupload claiming "VICTORY AGAINST UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP. The censorship of the Mega Song is OVER!!!" The reasons for the UMG takedown notice are increasingly unclear, as this Techdirt article explains.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking in India

The block on Megaupload in India occurred after Reliance Entertainment obtained a court order, citing illegal copies of its 2011 film Singham on the site. This was back in July, and the sourcing does not say whether the block on Mega is still in place (it is, according to this edit). The sourcing does not say whether other file hosting sites have since been unblocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]